Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-07-2012MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison: Call to order. William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Grant Sala Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee Lloyd Hilgart Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -NAC Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 2012 Commissioner Fyle moved to approve the minutes of October 2, 2012. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Sala. Motion carried 3 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R -2A (Single - Family) District lots. Applicant: Sunset Ponds, LLC Community Development Director Angela Schumann reviewed the staff report for the request. She indicated that the Planned Unit Development for Sunset Ponds was approved in 2003, Linder the previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Very few modifications were made tinder the original Planned Unit Development to the "General Building and Performance Requirements" and "Lot Size" requirements for the development. Instead, the PUD was used to allow a mixing of zoning districts within the development. Schumann stated that in December of 2011, the City approved an amendment to PUD for five lots in the R -1 area of Sunset Ponds. The amendment was proposed by Sunset Ponds, LLC, the applicant for this request. The amendment sought many of the same flexibilities proposed with this application. She explained that Sunset Ponds, LLC is seeking to amend the PUD to allow limited flexibility in building and performance standards for thirty of the lots it owns within the T -N portion of the development. The Planning Commission Minutes — November 7'h, 2012 balance of the lots in the area will comply with existing base ordinance and PUD standards. Schumann stated that the narrative and plans provided by the applicant indicate that the houses will meet the district's required minimum finished square footage, minimum garage square footage, and all setback and landscaping requirements for the district. However, with this PUD amendment, the applicant is seeking flexibility from four principal design standards. Schumann reviewed each individually. First, Schumann said that the applicant is seeking the flexibility to allow for stone veneers, shake siding or similar enhanced styles of accent colors to meet the 20% facade requirement. The applicant is also seeking clarification on how this standard will be applied on corner lots. Schia mann stated that staff would recommend a requirement that stone veneer be required on both the garage face area and portico as shown on the provided plans. Shake siding shall not be permitted in lieu of stone veneer, but only to complete the required 20% as shown on plans. Staff would further recommend that any corner lot include additional stone or brick on the secondary right of way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20% "front building facade" requirement. Secondly, each of the home designs proposed exceeds the standard requiring that no more than 50% of the front of the home faced by made up of garage doors that face the street standard. The applicants propose exterior design enhancements to off -set the garage - dominant appearance. These enhancements would include additional gabling and variation in building materials and colors. The applicants also proposes finished living space above the garage, cantilevered slightly beyond the garage building line, which creates a visual break along the front building plane of the homes. Schumann stated that staff would recommend that this flexibility be supported by a requirement that all garage doors include raised panels and window lights. The applicant is also seeking to off -set the flexibility requested by placing cantilevered living area over the garage, effectively creating the effect of single family living space closer to the street than the garage to reduce the "garage- forward" appearance. Lastly, Schumann explained that the applicant is seeking an allowance for a larger garage footprint than home footprint. Although no floor plans were submitted, the lot plans submitted by the applicant indicate a garage footprint of 25.5' x 26', a total footprint of 663 square feet. The applicant's narrative also indicates an intent to meet the minimum garage size of 450 square feet for all garages. The footprint of the home's first floor foundation is approximately 585 square feet. As such, for at least some of the homes proposed, the applicant is seeking flexibility from the provision requiring a larger home footprint than garage footprint. The applicant proposes to include the living area above the garage as part of the footprint calculation of the home, thereby balancing the garage and home foundation sizes. Schumann noted that Sunset Ponds, LLC invited all those within the 500' notice area to a neighborhood meeting on November lst to discuss the currently proposed amendments. The Planning Commission and City Council were also invited to attend 2 Planning Commission Minutes — November 7'h, 2012 Schumann concluded by stating that in considering whether to amend an existing PUD, the City is asked to consider the whether the proposed amendments affect the PUD's ability to continue to achieve PUD goals outlined by code. Planning Commission will need to determine whether the amendments proposed will provide the needed balance between construction of homes which blend into the existing Sunset Ponds neighborhood and the applicant's desire for a marketable home product. Schumann asked for any questions. Commissioner Spartz asked if staff was recommending both raised panels and window lights for the garage doors. Schumann responded that staff is recommending both on any double door, but either or could be considered. Commissioner Spartz asked if the houses are being wired with cable or fiber optics as a code requirement. Schumann answered that such service is not a code requirement at this time, but both are available to the neighborhood. Commissioner Spartz clarified that not all of the remaining T -N lots were included in the amendment. Schumann confirmed that only a small handful were not included in this request. Commissioner Fyle asked if it were standard practice, with corner lots, to require additional stone or brick. Schumann responded that it is not a code requirement, and in this case it is staff s recommendation that it is related to the visibility of corner lots. The status of this development is under a PUD, which gives the opportunity to request design enhancements and because these are all narrow lots, the larger extent of the home exists on the secondary face. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. Don Jensen, addressed the Commission as a representative for the applicant, Sunset Ponds, LLC. Mr. Jensen briefly described the characteristics of the neighborhood, the lot size and type of housing. Jensen outlined the lots included in the request. Mr. Jensen noted that a tour was held for staff, planning commissioners, and residents where they could view the interior and exterior of the proposed houses built by the same builder. He stated that there is a lot more going on visually with the house designs proposed, in terms of the type of materials, colors used and articulation. These differ from what was proposed in the original neighborhood. The shakes and brick make it easier along with other materials to create more interest with home buyers than what was originally intended. Mr. Jensen mentioned that sometimes window lights are desired by owners and sometimes not, that is why the applicant is asking for flexibility. Some home buyers wish to insulate their garage. This particular type of window could create a problem with an insulated garage in terms of cost of insulating a door with windows. He pointed out Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 ", 2012 that one of the original hopes for this neighborhood was to bridge pricing from the townhomes to the narrower lots to the larger lot developments so that opportunities were kept for a variety of home buyers. This would require some flexibility with window lights and raised panels and so forth. Five different color pallets were submitted. Also in the package, is the design with the portico has a two car garage door, with the space behind the window, is actually a third car space, which makes a fairly large garage. However, when the plans were shifted to create a three car garage with three car garage doors is when we came to the need for more flexibility and more effective language. And one way they could deal with it was with the second floor. In addition, at one of the neighborhood meetings, one of the neighbors suggested a two car garage plan be created. Mr. Jenson stated that the real goal in terms of the flexibility is that Fodder Homes has a clear path with which to work with home buyers, a clear path as to how they can modify some home designs to make flexibility work to get build out going. In addition he stated that perhaps not all the lots may be built by Fodder, so having criteria to follow and hand off in the future would be important. With that, Mr. Jenson asked for questions. Commissioner Fyle referenced staff s recommendation, and questioned if windows in the garage doors keeps it significantly aesthetically pleasing, but stated that he is leaning more to the side of requiring stone. Commissioner Sala stated that he is supportive of the window recommendation, but is not clear on the stone/brick recommendation. Schumann clarified that staff recommendation was that the shakes are not to be used exclusively in place of any brick or stone, but rather that some type of brick or stone will still be used, with shakes to compliment the stone or brick in order to reach the 20 %. Council liaison Hilgart asked if there was a code requirement for finishable square feet. Schumann replied that there is no finishable square footage. The R -1 and R -IA have minimum square footages, minimum finished square footages and minimum finishable square footages. The R -2A, now T -N does not have a minimal finishable square footage, only a minimum total and minimum finished. Council liaison Hilgart commented that as far as the garage doors go, it doesn't matter if they have windows or not, but given the style of the house, the garage doors should have decorative hardware. Mr. Jensen responded that some like the hinges and windows and some buyers do not. He is trying to represent what an even fair compromise might look like. Mr. Hilgart asked if the size of the house is the same whether it has a two or three car garage. Mr. Jensen answered that there is flexibility in the way the homes are designed; some of the homes have two bathrooms and some have three, but the majority of the square footages in the Hickory Plan are the same. Mr. Hilgart referenced the plans, and confirmed that there was not a potential to have 20% brick or stone due to the design on some of the plans. Schumann confirmed. On the design of the fayade, the area available for brick or stone was maximized and therefore the shakes were sought in order to reach the required 20 %. Commissioner Hilgart offered that it might not be as appealing to look at another 0 1i Planning Commission Minutes — November 7`", 2012 garage door, but at least that way there is more available storage. Council liaison Hilgtrt inquired how many people received a notice. Mr. Jensen replied that everyone who staff sent a notice to was contacted. Schumann stated that for the notification area, a new ordinance tole was followed, which is everyone within 500 feet of the affected area. Mr. Hilgart asked if this neighborhood was an association neighborhood. Schumann responded, stating that staff has asked the applicant to research the status of the association, and check into the irrigation issues with the water superintendent. Mr. Jensen said there is an association, but it was under the control of the original developer, more than likely just to accommodate some of the maintenance. For this he said he will defer to the ownership group. Mr. Steve McCann, representative for Sunset Ponds, LLC, said that after researching, it was determined that this area does not an active association. The irrigation system is completely shut off. HE indicated that Sunset Ponds LLC does not to make it an active association, and would rather take the approach that an individual irrigation system is put in. Schumann volunteered to talk with the water superintendent and the city attorney in defense of people who bought a house under the impression that they could use a common sprinkler system. However, because it is private, it is up to the property owners to research legal rights when it comes to private, inactive associations. Mr. Jensen said that that the owner of the lots bought them from the bank because the original developer or creator of the documents is no longer available. So this set of lots and future residents will have the same issues that were perhaps being asked of the previous built ownership. At the end of the day, they are responsible for their own water whether they have one common bill and divide it, or an individual system. The payer of the bill is still the residents of that community. Commissioner Spartz asked if the 32 proposed lots fit a three car, two -door garage. Mr. Jenson responded, that, yes, the houses are 32 feet wide, with the Hickory design, on a 52 foot wide lot. There is a 6 foot side yard setback as a minimum. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicant if he were familiar with all the items listed in Exhibit Z. He specifically referred to item number 6, about the garage doors, saying it says double garage doors. He indicated that he would prefer to see it read `all garage doors need to have raised panels' so everything matches. Mr. Jensen said that the applicant would like to see flexibility with the third door where the raised panels might be used just not necessary with the windows. Commissioner Spartz stated he was in agreement with the flexibility on the garage doors, but would like to see the water piece clarified. He liked the idea of the provision of the three car garage, because there zoning restrictions on outdoor storage. His thought is that the conditions could be revised to require that all garage doors include raised panels and allow window lights as an accessory. Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 "i, 2012 Commissioner Sala asked that if the houses the Commission were being shown were indeed real examples of existing houses found in the neighborhood. Mr. Jensen replied that some are, and some are from the surrounding communities, such as Buffalo. Commissioner Sala stated that he is trying to discern whether the houses that are proposed would fit into what already exists in the neighborhood, as far as the garage doors go. Mr. Jenson said that the existing houses' garage doors do in fact have windows. Commissioner Sala questioned the amount of houses that have the craftsmen style hinges and handles on the garage doors. Mr. Jenson said that out of the small handful of houses that are actually built in the neighborhood, he doesn't remember seeing many that have the craftsmen upgrades. Mr. Jenson replied that the existing homes were built by others but the garages have window lights and raised panels and the houses predominately have brick accents. Council liaison Hilgart asked if any homes had shared driveways. Schumann replied that the previous builder struggled to find a design that would fill the requirements in the R- 2A narrow lots. The solution they arrived at was using original design and incorporated the shared driveways. This current scenario eliminates the shared driveway configuration. The applicant indicated it was not their preference to include shared driveways. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing to be brought back up to the commission. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOTIONED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2012 -093, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR T -N (SINGLE- FAMILY) DISTRICT LOTS FOR SUNSET PONDS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH ITEM 6 TO BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE RAISED PANELS WITH OPTIONAL WINDOW LIGHTS ON THE GARAGE DOORS, AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. COMMISSIONER SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Spartz called for discussion, inquiring whether Commission Fyle wished to address the irrigation in his motion. Commissioner Fyle questioned if it was an issues for Planning Commission. Schumann said that staff will consult with the City Attorney and search the county document records for the association document to try and achieve more clarity prior to this going forward to Council. If recommended for approval, it will go to Council Tuesday evening on the consent agenda. Commissioner Sala inquired whether anyone had asked he existing homeowners whether they would like an association. Mr. Jensen indicated that his perception is that most would prefer to manage their own systems. 6 Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 "i, 2012 MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval Sunset Ponds, LLC 1. The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance minimum finished square footage standards. 2. The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance minimum setback requirements. 3. Stone or brick veneer shall be required on both the garage face area and portico as shown on the provided plans and dated October 6', 2012. 4. Shake veneer shall not be permitted as an exclusive treatment in lieu of stone or brick veneer, and shall only be used to compliment the brick or stone in meeting the required 20% as shown on plans. 5. Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right of way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20% "front building fagade" requirement. 6. All garage doors include raised panels and may include window lights. 7. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same exterior home design. 8. The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit Development for Sunset Ponds and Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Entertainment/Recreation — Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly, and Restaurant and Retail uses under 10,000 square feet in the F -3 Sub - District of the CCD (Central Community District). Applicant: Hillside Partnership, LLC Community Development Director Schumann provided an overview of the staff report for the request. She stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a mixing of retail, indoor commercial recreation, places of public assembly, and restaurant uses for future tenants in an existing multi- tenant commercial building. Schumann provided the Commission with the land use history of the site, including the rationale for a new conditional use permit. She indicated that in 1992, the property was issued a Conditional Use permit for retail commercial uses under a Performance Zone - Mixed District. The property also received variances related to parking, and subsequently rezoned another portion of the property to allow for the expansion of the parking area. Following the completion of the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan, the City adopted changes both to its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, consistent with the 1997 plan. At that time the zoning for this property was amended to CCD, Central Community District. Retail and restaurant uses became permitted uses in the new CCD, and the old CUP was extinguished. Then, in 2011, the City adopted the 7 Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 "i, 2012 Embracing Downtown plan and again adopted amendments to the zoning ordinance in support of the plan. However, with this series of amendments, the CCD zoning remains in place, but with "sub- district" designations which reflect the character of various districts within the downtown itself. As such, Schumann stated that this property has retained its CCD zoning designation, but is now within the F -3 (Transitional) sub - district. The F -3 classification is related to the property's location at the edge of the downtown, where commercial properties often abut residential uses. The code once again requires Conditional Use Permits for retail and restaurant uses under 10,000 square feet and Hillside Partnership is required to obtain a new CUP for tenant spaces vacant for more than one year. Schumann indicated that the City must evaluate the new uses under the 2012 CCD zoning code. Other unrelated permanent site conditions that have been continuously used on this site would be grandfathered in if out of compliance with the current code, or, allowed under any variances approved at the time of their development. Schumann stated that the applicant is seeking approval to allow a mix of potential tenants within the existing building. These tenants may include retailers, restaurants, and places of public assembly. At the present time, the building has three available tenant spaces. No outdoor activity for any of the above proposed uses is requested under this CUP. The applicant has been advised that such uses would require a separate CUP. Schuman indicated that the zoning code outlines a set of criteria for CUPS overall, and then by individual use. Schumann reviewed the overall CUP criteria first, stating that the application meets each of the requirements, provided that they are applicable. Schumann took time to address the condition requiring that the conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements. She stated that a detailed parking analysis was completed based on existing tenants. The current site uses require a total of 42 spaces. The proposed BL Bikes use would require an additional 25 spaces. Based on current parking availability of 180 total spaces, staff believes the proposed uses for the vacant tenant spaces can be accommodated, subject to a condition that a parking analysis be required for any restaurant or place of public assembly use tenant prior to occupancy to ensure adequate supply. Schuman next reviewed the specific requirements for Entertaimnent /Recreation — Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly, Restaurants and Retail uses. She stated that the property is compliant with all requirements, with the notation that any outdoor uses on the site will require an additional new CUP. Schuman reported that subject to the Conditions as outlined in Exhibit Z, staff recommends approval. The existing building configuration, location and parking can appropriately accommodate the proposed uses. In addition, the proposed uses adequately meet the conditions outlined by code. Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 ", 2012 Commissioner Spartz asked if the property held a CUP and remained vacant for a period of time, would the applicant have to come back again despite the change in the CCD. Schiunami responded that any use requiring a CUP would need to come back after a lapse of one year. Schumann noted that that this CUP would be drafted such that each of the listed uses would be conditionally permitted for any and all of the tenant spaces in the building. What this means is that the entire building would have to be vacant for a period of 12 months in order for the CUP to lapse or expire. Commissioner Spartz confirmed that by including the whole building, we will hopefully not have to go through that process. Commissioner Spartz next opened the public hearing. Jim Peterson representative for Bullseye Properties, addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner, Hillside Partnership. In working to lease this property, he has met with many prospects. Most of them are inquiring about the four uses that he is requesting tonight; retail, indoor recreation, places of public assembly, and restaurant use under 10,000 feet. He stated that he has had restaurants under 10,000 feet in the building before and retail in the building previously. The indoor recreation has basically created the need for the CUP and lead to the request for other uses under the CUP. Peterson stated that the application costs can make it difficult to have a conversation and encourage people to relocate, which is why he is asking for the whole building. The original CCD zoning permitted uses that included; convince stores, broadcasting, funeral homes, and quite a few more uses than he is asking for. Peterson stated that the owner would like to move forward and get the space occupied. Hearing no other public coimnent, Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fyle said that approval is the right way to move forward, as the building is established, and if another use outside those requested comes forward, it can be reviewed at that time. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2012 -094, RECOMMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION — INDOOR COMMERCIAL, PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 -560 CEDAR STREET, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS AS CONTAINED WITHIN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. Planning Commission Minutes — November 71h 2012 Exhibit Z 500 -560 Cedar Street Hillside Partnership, LLC November, 2012 1. The applicant shall provide a parking plan analysis indicating the total amount of parking for each tenant and the total facility for each tenant space prior to occupation. 2. Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance. 3. Any future drive - through use shall require approval of a conditional use permit. 4. Any firture outdoor uses, including outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor commercial recreation, shall require approval of a conditional use permit. 5. The building and tenant space signage shall require separate sign permit approval subject to the current sign ordinance. Community Development Director Report. (AS) Schumann reported that commercial and Industrial construction is having another strong year and as of that date, the City had received 22 new single family home permits. Schumann reported that On October 31", 2012, the City received verbal confirmation from the DNR that they will be sending a formal letter certifying the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational and Shoreland overlay district language. After two years, this is the last step in the process. The City now has a fully adopted set of ordinances to protect our public waters. Schumann stated that On October 22 "d, the City Council approved an amendment to the existing PUD for the Carton Addition (as opposed to a new PUD) as related to the Cornerstone application. The action was requested by the applicant and the other party to the PUD, Sell Real Estate Holdings. Council also approved an allowance for the 200' square foot message board. Schumann also noted that the City Engineer, Building Dept. and Community Development staff met to begin ordinance re -write process. In our discussions, it was determined that due to workload issues and the need to incorporate other code or policy components into the new ordinance, the updating will require more time than originally anticipated. Finally, Schumann indicated that the small group of EDA, IEDC and Planning Commission members had a very productive first meeting with some specific recommendations for updating the baseline data and reference information in the chapter. Additions will include 2010 Census econ data, Business Retention & Expansion 10 Planning Commission Minutes — November 7 "i, 2012 information and references to data from new Embracing Downtown plan. We will also include a current inventory of available industrial land (both in current municipal boundary and annexation area) as well as how much of that land is available relative to potential infrastructiore investments. From there, the group will discuss specific strategy statements for potential amendment. 9. Adiourn COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:19 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. Recorder: Ellen Eden Approved: December 4 ", 20 Attest: Angela Sclni17�raj nfCbTnm`unity Development Director 11